Online Now 820

Wolverine247 Board

The place for discussion on the Michigan Wolverines

On this Board 498
Record: 2671 (1/26/2013)

Online now 831
Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)

Reply

Takeover

  • Clarkw267 said...

    Can I ask why?

    I just feel like up to this point, 247 has more accurate rankings. Of course I don't know about each and every prospect, but of the ones I do know I like where 247 has them.
    Examples:

    I do not think Elijah Hood is a 5*. There is no way he should be ranked above Bo Scarbrough and Dalvin Cook.

    I find it hard to believe Juju Smith isn't even a top 100 prospect.

    Also think Jamarco Jones is a bit underrated on rivals.

    A few more players I think are overrated/underrated. I'm pretty much nitpicking, and I'm not trashing Rivals. I still think their initial 2014 rankings are pretty good, I'm just saying so far I like 247's better.

    signature image

    Rabid

  • Rabid said...

    I just feel like up to this point, 247 has more accurate rankings. Of course I don't know about each and every prospect, but of the ones I do know I like where 247 has them. Examples:

    I do not think Elijah Hood is a 5*. There is no way he should be ranked above Bo Scarbrough and Dalvin Cook.

    I find it hard to believe Juju Smith isn't even a top 100 prospect.

    Also think Jamarco Jones is a bit underrated on rivals.

    A few more players I think are overrated/underrated. I'm pretty much nitpicking, and I'm not trashing Rivals. I still think their initial 2014 rankings are pretty good, I'm just saying so far I like 247's better.

    I don't think it's really possible to say who has more accurate rankings until after the camp circuit.

    There are players that probably should be higher or lower than they are at on both lists.

    signature image signature image

    Clarkw267 ●

  • Clarkw267 said...

    I don't think it's really possible to say who has more accurate rankings until after the camp circuit.

    There are players that probably should be higher or lower than they are at on both lists.

    Yeah. I'm basing this off of nothing but film so my opinion is pretty flimsy, but it's pretty much the only thing we can go off of as of now. Camp circuit will be fun.

    signature image

    Rabid

  • CorchBlue said...

    I like that.

    If they get more videos or see another prospect in person and he has improved, and he deserves to move up, why should they have to wait for some arbitrary date to change? That is just stupid IMO.

    Rankings should be fluid, and I like that the 247's rankings are.

    I agree. Also, people forget that in the last year, 247 has poached a lot of TOS better analysts. It will only get better and better while the others start to eventually fall behind.

    signature image signature image signature image

    MichRedWingFan77412 ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    JC said they factored that in because some staffs (i.e. Alabama) have a better track record of developing talent than others. It created quite the discussion on tBB several weeks ago. These are their rankings so in the end they are entitled to factor in whatever they want. But a lot of posters were surprised to find out.

    If that's the case shouldn't all of spartys commits b moved up to 5* lol

    BLUEinTX ●

  • MichRedWingFan77412 said...

    I agree. Also, people forget that in the last year, 247 has poached a lot of TOS better analysts. It will only get better and better while the others start to eventually fall behind.

    Whether or not they poach the better analysts though, it all comes down to methodology. I disagree with some of the things 247 puts into their ranking methodology. That's not a knock on 247 or anything, I would just approach rankings a bit differently.

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI ●

  • CMXI said...

    Whether or not they poach the better analysts though, it all comes down to methodology. I disagree with some of the things 247 puts into their ranking methodology. That's not a knock on 247 or anything, I would just approach rankings a bit differently.

    If the trend continues, then I would assume some of the input of the other methodologies would start to suffer. You need analysts to rank the players and it seems 247 keeps getting better in that regard.

    This post was edited by MichRedWingFan77412 on 2/16/2013 at 3:55 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    MichRedWingFan77412 ●

  • MrWoodson said...

    Exactly. 247's rankings change too much. They should put out an initial set of rankings after junior year and then update them once each for summer camps, senior season and maybe the all-star games. Also, the fact that 247 openly factors in where a prospect commits is bizarre. A prospect should not get a higher ranking because he commits to one school over another. Offers I understand, because if the top schools want a prospect that's a very good confirmation he's probably good, but where he commits should be irrelevant. I look at all four services, but think Rivals still does it best.

    It didn't seem to affect the number one ranking of all the Ole Miss recruits. I think the drop in rankings only comes into play if the prospect signs with a non SEC school.

    blue in ohio

  • MrWoodson said...

    Exactly. TBH I think 247 moves the rankings around so much intentionally to build website traffic. Every time they move a guy up or down someone starts a thread to complain about it. I can't say I really blame them, because this is a business. But worrying about every update they put out 12 months ahead of NSD is a waste of time. If you are going to use 247's rankings, there's no point even looking at them until at least November.

    Recruiting is a fluid process, and so 247's kinetic rankings changes are a reflection of that process

    signature image signature image signature image

    Awink2

  • I like Scout, not necessarily just for the rankings, but more for how the site is set up. Maybe it's because Scout is what I used when I started following recruiting, but I do think the site overall is easier to use. They are generous with their rankings, and I don't mind that either. Plus, they don't have an all-star game affiliation, and let's not forget Allen Trieu.

    freshone

  • Disclaimer: This isn't a knock on this site. Rivals ranking predict future success better than any other. That is a fact and there is no room for interpretation.The jury is still out on 247. Have a look at the analysis for yourself if you're skeptical. In a few years, I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to look at the data again once the first class of 247 ranked recruits hits the nfl.

    To the OP: The idea that you could look at Rivals 2014 list and make any conclusions about it is absurd. Should I list the reasons why? 1)Who are you to judge? 2)They aren't final 3)They're junior rankings 4)None of the players are in college or pros yet... etc

    To be clear, the time to judge who put together the best 2014 list will not come until at least 2020.

    This post was edited by DJNiteFlite on 2/18/2013 at 10:04 AM

    Rating the Raters: Reviewing Recruiting Services for Success and Bias | mgoblog

    () () Matthew Stafford (Rivals #6 overall, 2006) and Mitch Mustain (Rivals #10 overall, 2006) With the ESPN150 hot off of the presses yesterday, all four major sites now have an updated Top 150/247/250/300 list available for the 2013 class. I wanted to dive in and look at how each service has performed over the years.

    mgoblog.com

    I want to make it known that Steve Lorenz (Tremendous) is the reason my trial month became a permanent membership. Smart move 247.

    DJNiteFlite

  • Rabid said...

    I'm looking at the Rivals 2014 top100 and honestly these rankings look pretty bad to me. Ever since I've followed recruiting, I've used Rivals whenever I look at rankings, but so far I think 247 is doing the best job with them. IMO this is the year 247sports becomes the best recruiting service. flex

    Steve, Clint, Mark, and Thomas all do fantasic jobs of bringing us info and writing articles.

    Thanks! I know all of us put a lot of work into the site and hope everyone enjoys it!

    Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tbeindit

    Thomas Beindit

  • Each site has its strengths and weaknesses. I haven't looked at Rivals' rankings yet, but I think 247 overall does a very good job. There was only one prospect that I really disagreed with their rating on for Penn State's 2013 class (Brendan Mahon).

    I think it's a positive that they're always looking to change their rankings.

    I certainly don't agree with everything, especially something like having 32 5* players each year, but it is what it is.

    signature image

    psubills62

  • DJNiteFlite said...

    Disclaimer: This isn't a knock on this site. Rivals ranking predict future success better than any other. That is a fact and there is no room for interpretation.The jury is still out on 247. Have a look at the analysis for yourself if you're skeptical. In a few years, I'm sure someone will take it upon themselves to look at the data again once the first class of 247 ranked recruits hits the nfl.

    To the OP: The idea that you could look at Rivals 2014 list and make any conclusions about it is absurd. Should I list the reasons why? 1)Who are you to judge? 2)They aren't final 3)They're junior rankings 4)None of the players are in college or pros yet... etc

    To be clear, the time to judge who put together the best 2014 list will not come until at least 2020.

    I would have agreed with this in the past, but the fact is that all those analysts that made Rivals great are now at 24/7. If anything, Rivals is up to debate if they can continue their success they have had in the past.

    signature image signature image

    Go Blue and Go Titans!

    CorchBlue

  • CorchBlue said...

    I would have agreed with this in the past, but the fact is that all those analysts that made Rivals great are now at 24/7. If anything, Rivals is up to debate if they can continue their success they have had in the past.

    Disagree. Rivals has a track record we can measure. 247 does not. It's too new. Until 247 builds up a similar track record, you can't just assume it's as good or better because they hired some of Rivals' people.

    We have no idea how the rankings are created by any of the services. Who has input? What is the process? Is it fair and objective or is it intentionally or unintentionally biased in certain ways? We don't know. All we see is the end result so that's all we really can judge. And the reality is that we have years of data on Rivals and Scout and ESPN, but we don't have enough data to make a fair assessment of 247 yet. Until we do, it's pure guesswork whether 247's rankings will prove to be more or less predictive of future success than any of the other services.

    MrWoodson

  • MrWoodson said...

    Disagree. Rivals has a track record we can measure. 247 does not. It's too new. Until 247 builds up a similar track record, you can't just assume it's as good or better because they hired some of Rivals' people.

    We have no idea how the rankings are created by any of the services. Who has input? What is the process? Is it fair and objective or is it intentionally or unintentionally biased in certain ways? We don't know. All we see is the end result so that's all we really can judge. And the reality is that we have years of data on Rivals and Scout and ESPN, but we don't have enough data to make a fair assessment of 247 yet. Until we do, it's pure guesswork whether 247's rankings will prove to be more or less predictive of future success than any of the other services.

    But the guys who made that track record at Rivals are now here. So you're saying that their track record matters less than the company they work for?

    Like if you have a CEO/founder and his BOA of a very successful and profitable consulting firm leave to go to a startup, wouldn't you rather work with the startup that has the proven employees as opposed to the firm that has a good track record but new employees?

    signature image signature image signature image

    Ducksworth

  • MrWoodson said...

    Disagree. Rivals has a track record we can measure. 247 does not. It's too new. Until 247 builds up a similar track record, you can't just assume it's as good or better because they hired some of Rivals' people.

    We have no idea how the rankings are created by any of the services. Who has input? What is the process? Is it fair and objective or is it intentionally or unintentionally biased in certain ways? We don't know. All we see is the end result so that's all we really can judge. And the reality is that we have years of data on Rivals and Scout and ESPN, but we don't have enough data to make a fair assessment of 247 yet. Until we do, it's pure guesswork whether 247's rankings will prove to be more or less predictive of future success than any of the other services.

    ... a track record that was created by the analysts that moved to 24/7.

    And it wasn't just "some" of their people, it was darn near every single good one they got. Sure, a few stayed, but I would take a venture and say about 85-90% of their top people are now on 24/7. Heck, the person who created Rivals is the person who created 24/7.

    signature image signature image

    Go Blue and Go Titans!

    CorchBlue

  • MrWoodson said...

    Disagree. Rivals has a track record we can measure. 247 does not. It's too new. Until 247 builds up a similar track record, you can't just assume it's as good or better because they hired some of Rivals' people.

    We have no idea how the rankings are created by any of the services. Who has input? What is the process? Is it fair and objective or is it intentionally or unintentionally biased in certain ways? We don't know. All we see is the end result so that's all we really can judge. And the reality is that we have years of data on Rivals and Scout and ESPN, but we don't have enough data to make a fair assessment of 247 yet. Until we do, it's pure guesswork whether 247's rankings will prove to be more or less predictive of future success than any of the other services.

    Thank you. Empiricism isn't hard to understand. Just look at the data. Anything short of that is pointless. Doesn't matter who produced it or where they work now . In fact I said too much when I said Rivals is the best at predicting success. What I should have said was for THAT period Rivals rankings were the best predictors of future success.

    This post was edited by DJNiteFlite on 2/18/2013 at 1:26 PM

    I want to make it known that Steve Lorenz (Tremendous) is the reason my trial month became a permanent membership. Smart move 247.

    DJNiteFlite

Michigan
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports